AUDIT REPORT 

Audit of the Committee to Review 

Generic Requirements 

OIG-09-A-06 February 2, 2009 

All publicly available OIG reports (including this report) are accessible through 

NRC’s Web site at: 

http:/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/ 
UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 February 2, 2009 

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Stephen D. Dingbaum /RA/ 

 Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT: AUDIT OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC 

REQUIREMENTS (OIG-09-A-06) 

Attached is the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) audit report titled, Audit of the 

Committee to Review Generic Requirements. 

 

The report presents the results of the subject audit. Agency comments provided at 

the January 7, 2009, exit conference were incorporated into this report, as 

appropriate. 

Please provide information on actions taken or planned on each of the 

recommendations within 30 days of the date of this memorandum. Actions taken or 

planned are subject to OIG followup as stated in Management Directive 6.1. 

We appreciate the cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during the 

audit. If you have any questions or comments about our report, please contact me 

at 415-5915 or Sherri Miotla, Team Leader, Nuclear Safety Audit Team, at 

415-5914. 

Attachment: As stated 
Electronic Distribution

Edward M. Hackett, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Reactor 

 Safeguards/Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials 

E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and 

 Licensing Board Panel 

Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel 

John F. Cordes, Jr., Director, Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

Jim E. Dyer, Chief Financial Officer 

Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs 

Rebecca L. Schmidt, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs 

Eliot B. Brenner, Director, Office of Public Affairs 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission 

Bruce S. Mallett, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor 

 and Preparedness Programs, OEDO 

Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, 

 State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, OEDO 

Darren B. Ash, Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management 

 and Chief Information Officer, OEDO 

Vonna L. Ordaz, Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Timothy F. Hagan, Director, Office of Administration 

Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director, Office of Enforcement 

Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

Guy P. Caputo, Director, Office of Investigations 

Thomas M. Boyce, Director, Office of Information Services 

James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Corenthis B. Kelley, Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II 

James L. Caldwell, Regional Administrator, Region III 

Elmo E. Collins, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IV 

 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established its Committee to 

Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) to help ensure that generic 

backfits imposed on NRC-licensees are appropriately justified based on 

NRC’s regulations and backfit policy. Simplified, a backfit is a modification 

to a facility, or the procedures or organization required to operate the 

facility, due to a new or amended NRC regulation, rule, or interpretation. 

NRC considers backfitting as an inherent part of its regulatory process. 

According to agency guidance documents, for sound and effective 

regulation it is important that backfitting be conducted by a controlled and 

defined process. 

In October 1981, the presiding NRC Chairman identified a need to better 

control the number and nature of backfit requirements imposed by NRC 

on its licensees. The Chairman further stipulated that a single, central 

point of control at NRC’s highest operating level of management was 

needed, and in November 1981, NRC established the CRGR as its central 

backfit control. The CRGR’s key implementing procedure for conducting 

generic backfit reviews is its Charter. The CRGR’s mission, as identified 

in the Charter, includes ensuring that unintended backfits are not imposed 

or implied by proposed new or revised generic requirements for NRClicensed power reactors and nuclear materials facilities, and that NRCproposed actions are appropriately justified. 

PURPOSE

The objective of this audit was to determine if the CRGR adds value for 

the Executive Director for Operations’ decisionmaking purposes and 

whether the committee’s function is still needed. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

The CRGR no longer functions as originally intended with respect to 

generic backfit reviews. Although NRC must still ensure that generic 

backfits are appropriately justified based on regulations and policy, the 

CRGR no longer performs the central role in this process. This is because 

the agency’s processes have evolved which, in effect, resulted in other 

offices assuming some of the CRGR’s duties. However, the agency has 

not developed overarching, agencywide guidance that describes its 

current backfit review process or reassessed what, if any, role the CRGR 

should play in the current process. As a result, the CRGR does not add 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

ii

its full intended value as originally envisioned for backfit review and 

stakeholders do not fully understand NRC’s backfit review process, 

including the CRGR’s role. Moreover, without reassessing and 

documenting its current internal backfit review process, the agency cannot 

be assured that it is taking consistent or appropriate action with regard to 

backfit reviews and is taking the necessary steps to prevent unnecessary 

regulatory burden on NRC licensees. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report makes two recommendations to the Executive Director for 

Operations. The recommendations appear on page 13 of this report. 

AGENCY COMMENTS

At a January 7, 2009, exit conference, NRC senior managers, including 

CRGR members, agreed with the report’s finding and recommendations. 

The agency subsequently decided not to provide formal comments. This 

final report incorporates informal comments provided by the agency, as 

appropriate. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRGR Committee to Review Generic Requirements 

EDO Executive Director for Operations 

MD management directive 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

OGC Office of the General Counsel 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

P&PL Policy and Procedures Letter 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

iv

[Page intentionally left blank.]
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ i 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................iii 

I. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................1 

II. PURPOSE.......................................................................................3 

III. FINDING .........................................................................................4 

 THE CRGR NO LONGER FUNCTIONS AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.....5 

 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................13 

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS .................................................................13 

APPENDICES

A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY .....................................................15 

B. CRGR EVOLUTIONARY TIMELINE ..............................................17 

C. EVOLUTION OF AGENCY GENERIC BACKFIT REVIEWS 

TIMELINE.......................................................................................19 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

vi

[Page intentionally left blank] 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

1

I. BACKGROUND 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established its Committee to 

Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in 1981 to help ensure that 

generic backfits1 imposed on NRC-licensed power reactor facilities (and at 

a later date, certain nuclear materials facilities) were appropriately justified 

based on NRC’s regulations and backfit policy. Simplified, a backfit is a 

modification to a facility, or the procedures or organization required to 

operate the facility, due to a new or amended NRC regulation, rule, or 

interpretation.2 Backfitting3 is the process by which NRC issues new or 

revised requirements or staff positions to its licensees. Backfitting is 

expected to occur and is an inherent part of the regulatory process. 

NRC implements its backfit policy through multiple parts of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).4 The first of these parts is in 10 CFR 

50.109, commonly known as the “backfit rule.” Other guidance is provided 

in agency documents, such as NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines. Per 

NUREG-1409, for sound and effective regulation it is important that 

backfitting be conducted by a controlled and defined process. NRC’s 

backfit review process is intended to provide for a systematic, disciplined 

review of new or changed staff regulatory positions to ensure that changes 

are justified and suitably defined before they are imposed on NRC 

licensees. According to NRC guidance, when developing proposals the 

staff is expected to: 

• Assess the merits of emergent generic issues. 

• Determine whether a proposed generic action is needed. 

• Identify and analyze the consequences of alternative courses of action. 

                                                           

1 Generic backfits apply to two or more nuclear power reactors or applicable materials facilities. Oversight 

responsibility for plant-specific backfits, which apply to a single reactor or fuel facility, falls to NRC office directors. 

2 Jay M. Gutierrez and Alex S. Polonsky, Fundamentals of Nuclear Regulation in the United States, Morgan, Lewis & 

Bockius LLP, Second Edition, Chapter 5, ”Major Issues Associated With the Operation of Existing Nuclear Power 

Plants and the Licensing of Future Plants,” Section 3, “Changes Due to an NRC Backfit Determination,” page 80. 

3 10 CFR 50.109 defines “backfitting” as the modification of, or addition to, systems, structures, or components of a 

facility; or to the procedures or organization required to operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or 

amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the 

Commission rules that is either new or different from a previous NRC staff position.

4

 10 CFR Part 50.109 and Part 52, including 52.39, 52.63, 52.98, 52.145, and 52.171 for nuclear power reactors and 

10 CFR Parts 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76 for certain materials facilities as well as the provisions in 10 CFR Part 50.54(f), 

and the corresponding requirements in 10 CFR Parts 70, 72, and 76, and 10 CFR Part 2.204. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

2

• Select a preferred alternative. 

• Present a clear and well-documented explanation of why the NRC staff 

recommends the particular action. 

Each proposal should also contain the sponsoring program office's 

position as to whether the proposal would modify, implement, relax, or 

reduce existing requirements or staff positions, thereby causing a potential 

backfit. Upon completion of the staff’s review, all generic action 

proposals5 must be submitted to the CRGR for review. 

 Commission Identifies Need for Controls 

In October 1981, the presiding NRC Chairman identified a need to better 

control the number and nature of requirements that NRC imposes as 

backfits on its licensees. Specifically, the Chairman cited a need to stop 

the flow of “conflicting or inconsistent directives and requests” placed on 

NRC licensees by the staff.6

 The Chairman further stipulated that a single, 

central point of control at NRC’s highest operating level of management 

was needed to (1) review and coordinate the staff’s communication with 

licensees, (2) manage and control NRC’s requirements on licensees, and 

(3) ensure that all requirements issued or amended do, in fact, contribute 

effectively and significantly to the health and safety of the public. In 

November 1981, NRC established the CRGR as its central backfit control. 

 CRGR Charter 

The CRGR’s key implementing procedure for conducting generic backfit 

reviews is its Charter, which was initially issued in 1982 and last officially 

revised in 1999. The CRGR’s mission includes ensuring that unintended 

backfits are not imposed or implied by proposed new or revised generic 

requirements for NRC-licensed power reactors and nuclear materials 

facilities, and that NRC-proposed actions are appropriately justified. The 

Charter documents the committee’s mission, scope of activities, and 

operating procedures. According to the Charter, each program office 

proposal will include a determination that the burden to be imposed on the 

licensees is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue 

to be addressed. Such justification must be based on the backfit 

provisions of NRC’s regulations, Commission guidance and directives, 

applicable legislative acts, and Executive Orders. 

                                                           

5

 Generic action proposals are staff proposals developed to add or modify NRC regulations that have been identified 

as generic in nature. 

6 Memorandum for William Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, from Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman, subject: 

Reactor Requirements and Regional Office Reorganization, dated October 8, 1981.
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

3

CRGR Membership 

According to the 1999 version of the CRGR Charter, committee 

membership includes a Chairman and representatives from various NRC 

offices, as appointed by the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). The 

current CRGR includes senior representatives from the Offices of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research; Nuclear Reactor Regulation; Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards; Nuclear Security and Incident Response; New 

Reactors; and Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. The committee also includes a senior attorney 

from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and a rotating senior 

manager from one of NRC’s four regional offices. Because committee 

participation is a collateral duty, NRC’s budget does not include a 

separate allocation for the CRGR. However, the Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research currently designates 0.5 full-time equivalent to 

provide technical and administrative support to the CRGR. 

II. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this audit was to determine if the CRGR (1) adds value for 

EDO decisionmaking purposes and (2) function is still needed. This audit 

was initiated in response to NRC Commission interest. Appendix A 

provides additional information regarding the audit’s scope and 

methodology. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

4

III. FINDING 

The CRGR No Longer Functions As Originally Intended 

The CRGR no longer functions as originally intended with respect to 

generic backfit reviews. Although NRC must still ensure that generic 

backfits are appropriately justified based on regulations and policy, the 

CRGR no longer performs the central role in this process. This is because 

the agency’s processes have evolved which, in effect, resulted in other 

offices assuming some of the CRGR’s duties. However, the agency has 

not developed overarching, agencywide guidance that describes its 

current backfit review process or reassessed what, if any, role the CRGR 

should play in the current process. As a result, the CRGR does not add 

its full intended value as originally envisioned for backfit review and 

stakeholders do not fully understand NRC’s backfit review process, 

including the CRGR’s role. Moreover, without reassessing and 

documenting its current internal backfit review process, the agency cannot 

be assured that it is taking consistent or appropriate action with regard to 

backfit reviews and is taking the necessary steps to prevent unnecessary 

regulatory burden on NRC licensees. 

CRGR Was Originally Established To Serve As NRC’s Central 

Generic Backfit Control Point

When established, the CRGR was originally intended to serve as the 

agency’s central control point and advisor to the EDO and staff regarding 

NRC-proposed generic backfit issues. Specifically, the CRGR was tasked 

to control the number and nature of NRC-imposed generic backfit 

requirements by assuring that agency actions were appropriate so as not 

to impose unnecessary burden on NRC’s staff and licensees. 

Per its Charter, to ensure that the staff properly identified and justified 

proposed generic backfits, the CRGR is to review, among other things,7

new and revised regulatory requirements, generic correspondence, and 

regulatory guides8

 related to nuclear reactors and selected nuclear 

materials and fuel cycle facilities. The Charter further states that a formal 

CRGR review is to be “the ultimate check in NRC’s backfit management to 

                                                           

7 The CRGR will also review selected NRC staff guidance related to licensing, inspection, assessment, and 

enforcement. 

8 Except those requiring immediate action by the licensing office because they may involve adequate protection 

issues.
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

5

ensure that the internal backfit control processes work” before imposing 

changes on NRC’s licensees. According to the previous CRGR Chairman 

and current staff, a formal CRGR review involves the full committee 

reviewing, meeting, and voting on submitted backfit issues. 

Additionally, the Charter states that the committee’s primary 

responsibilities include recommending to the EDO either the approval or 

disapproval of proposed generic actions, guiding and assisting the 

program offices in implementing the Commission's backfit policy, and 

reviewing NRC's administrative generic backfit controls to determine if the 

controls are sufficient and the staff guidance is comprehensive and clear. 

The CRGR No Longer Functions As Originally Intended, Although the 

Requirement To Review for Generic Backfits Remains

The CRGR no longer functions as originally intended with respect to 

generic backfit reviews. Although NRC must still ensure that generic 

backfits are appropriately justified based on regulations and policy, the 

CRGR no longer performs the central role in this process. 

 CRGR No Longer Functions As Originally Intended 

As originally intended, the CRGR served for many years as NRC’s central 

control point for reviewing program office proposals to make approval or 

disapproval recommendations of generic backfit actions to the EDO. 

However, since the 1990s, the committee has not functioned in the same 

manner. [Appendix B reflects a timeline of CRGR’s evolving role.] 

During its initial years, the CRGR members and a technical support staff 

served as the central reviewers of all generic action proposals submitted 

to them by program offices. Specifically, the CRGR members, with 

assistance from six full-time senior technical experts, formally reviewed all 

program office proposals to determine the completeness, adequacy, and 

sufficiency of the analysis, details, and technical data provided by the staff 

in support of the proposed requirements changes. The CRGR then 

submitted written statements to the EDO justifying the findings of its formal 

reviews. These statements provided a clear foundation of the CRGR’s 

recommendations to the presiding EDO to approve, disapprove, or 

suggest modifications to the submitted proposals. Additionally, to assist 

the program offices with implementing the backfit policy, the CRGR 

reviewed the sufficiency of the staff’s cost-benefit analyses and 

probabilistic risk analyses when such analyses were required by the 

agency’s backfit policy. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

6

The current CRGR’s functions differ significantly from the past. First, the 

CRGR no longer serves as the central control point for conducting 

technical reviews of all program office proposals to support 

recommendations to the EDO. Instead, the primary responsibility for 

ensuring proper backfit considerations belongs to each sponsoring office9

which, in conjunction with OGC and other program offices as necessary, 

conducts in-depth backfit technical and legal reviews. The proposals are 

submitted to the CRGR for review only after these multi-office reviews are 

completed. 

Furthermore, the majority of all CRGR reviews are now informal, although 

the Charter does not provide for this type of review. Informal reviews do 

not result in a recommendation to the EDO that is based on a formal 

committee review. Instead, informal reviews of the program office 

proposals referenced in Figure 1 consisted of the CRGR Chairman and 

support staff reviewing the submittals, summarizing the issues, and 

determining if a formal review was needed. Of the 25 program office 

proposals submitted between June 1, 2007, and May 31, 2008, only three 

were considered by the CRGR members for formal review.10 Informal 

reviews of the remaining 22 submittals resulted in 21 proposals waived 

with or without comment and one deferred. Per the CRGR support staff, 

waived means that the CRGR Chairman’s informal review determined 

there was no need for a formal CRGR review, and deferred means that 

the CRGR will reserve comment on the proposal until after the public 

comment period expires. 

                                                           

9 NRC managers noted that although each sponsoring office has always been responsible for assuring compliance 

with applicable backfitting requirements, and OGC has always been involved in reviewing agency proposals, the 

offices are now more effective and robust in their plant-specific and generic backfitting compliance activities.

10 The three formal reviews each subsequently resulted in a CRGR endorsement. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

7

        

Figure 1 

CRGR Review Summary 2004-2008

7

9

5 3

26

34

18

21

10 11

4

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Years 

(June 1 - May 31)

Items Reviewed

Formal Review

Informal/Waived

Deferred

        Source: OIG-generated 

In addition to the infrequent use of formal reviews, current CRGR reviews, 

both informal and formal, are now more procedural than substantive. 

Recent CRGR Chairmen said that proposals were reviewed to ensure that 

the staff had properly complied with the process requirements of the 

backfit rule but not to assess the technical bases of the proposals. In 

other words, a review would typically ensure only that the required 

supporting documents were provided and included an appropriate 

justification for why the proposal does or does not represent a backfit. 

Additionally, the CRGR does not effectively follow up on its own 

recommendations to improve the agency’s generic backfit process. One 

of the CRGR’s responsibilities is to assess the NRC’s administrative 

controls over backfits. To this end, the CRGR’s Charter directs the 

committee to periodically review NRC’s control mechanisms in place for 

backfit reviews. In CRGR’s last assessment,11 performed in 2003, the 

committee identified several areas related to the agency’s backfit process 

that needed improvement and made recommendations to address the 

weaknesses. However, the CRGR did not retain followup responsibility for 

all of its recommendations and the committee’s support staff could not 

provide documentation that explicitly states the status of the CRGR’s 

recommendations. 

 

                                                           

11 The CRGR’s next 5-year assessment was due in 2008. However, with Commission approval, the CRGR put the 

next assessment into abeyance pending receipt of OIG’s audit report.  
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

8

The Requirement To Review Generic Backfits Remains 

The requirement to review program office proposals for backfit 

implications remains. Specifically, there is still a need for the agency to 

review proposed generic changes or modifications to ensure that any 

potential backfits are appropriately justified based on NRC regulations and 

policy prior to imposition on NRC’s licensees. Consistent with the intent of 

the regulations to avoid placing unnecessary burden on NRC licensees, 

agency managers and external stakeholders said that the agency’s backfit 

reviews of generic proposals are necessary to ensure backfits are 

appropriately characterized and warranted. Additionally, according to a 

former EDO, having a high-level, disciplined backfit review process 

provides another level of support for NRC decisions and actions. 

Generic Backfit Reviews Have Evolved Without a Defined 

Agencywide Process 

The CRGR no longer performs the central role in the backfit review 

process because the agency’s processes have evolved. Currently, other 

offices focus more effort on backfit compliance and interoffice 

communications on backfitting issues. This evolution, in effect, resulted in 

these offices assuming some of the CRGR’s duties. In contrast to a time 

when the CRGR served as the central agency control point for reviewing 

proposed generic backfits, the agency now relies on frequent agency 

office interactions, early stakeholder involvement in the review process, 

and multiple sources of backfit guidance to control NRC-imposed backfits. 

However, the agency has not developed overarching, agencywide 

guidance that describes its current backfit review process or reassessed 

what, if any, role the CRGR should play in the current process. 

Frequent Agency Office Interactions

In the 1980s, the agency’s program offices did not commonly 

communicate information about generic action proposals under 

development to other offices or submit them for multiple office reviews. 

This lack of interaction occasionally resulted in unintended conflicts with 

the proposed actions of another NRC office. Therefore, the CRGR role 

was important as a central point of contact in the backfit review process 

during that period. Today, in contrast, interoffice sharing of information 

during the development process of proposed actions is a common 

practice. For example, the agency’s senior managers routinely meet to 

discuss ongoing agency actions and, according to the agency, the 

interoffice communications regarding backfitting issues have also become 

more effective and robust. Additionally, other organizations such as the 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research’s Generic Issue Review Panel and 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

9

the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation’s Generic Communication and 

Power Uprate Branch now exist to perform reviews of generic issues for 

backfit implications. As a matter of function, both groups review 

documents prepared by their own offices, as well as documents 

sponsored by other agency offices. 

Further, a headquarters legal review early in the agency’s backfit review 

process is now considered a key control. NRC requires its program 

offices to obtain an OGC review of draft generic proposals before issuing 

the drafts for stakeholder comment. This legal review is intended to 

ensure that the staff’s proposals either include the required justification 

and analysis for a proposed backfit or the appropriate reason why the 

proposal does not represent a backfit. 

Thus, prior to CRGR’s involvement in the process, these multiple program 

office technical reviews, along with OGC’s legal role in the process, 

enhance the agency’s ability to properly identify and justify backfits in 

accordance with its requirements. For example, the Commission recently 

approved the staff’s request to remove the CRGR from the review of 

current and future proposals pertaining to new rules.12 In justifying this 

vote, the NRC Chairman cited an extensive agency concurrence process 

that typically allows all agency offices to concur prior to the CRGR review 

and provides sufficient opportunity for the agency's experts to identify any 

potential backfit issues. 

Early Stakeholder Involvement

Early stakeholder involvement helps to highlight previously unidentified 

backfit issues. As a result of NRC’s efforts to be more open and 

transparent in its processes, external stakeholders such as industry 

representatives and the general public are now routinely afforded an 

opportunity through Federal Register notices to comment on many NRC 

draft documents. As noted in a 1986 revision to the CRGR’s Charter, staff 

may interact with the public to obtain preliminary information on proposed 

actions and the CRGR could seek additional public comments, if desired. 

In contrast, by 2001, the agency had documented the value of early public 

involvement and directed staff to address which public participation 

                                                           

12 Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum - SECY-07-0134 - Evaluation of the Overall Effectiveness of the 

Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation Plan, dated October 25, 2007.
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

10

techniques would be included in their proposed actions. Furthermore, 

according to senior NRC managers, publishing documents in draft form for 

public comment serves as a valuable control mechanism for identifying 

potential backfit issues. 

Multiple Sources of Backfit Guidance 

Over the past 8 years, the agency has developed various guidance 

documents, including a number of agencywide management directives,13

to assist staff in identifying backfit issues when developing generic 

proposals. In addition, individual program offices developed and 

implemented guidance on internal backfit reviews specific to their areas of 

responsibility.14 (See Appendix C for a timeline for the evolution of agency 

generic backfit reviews, including additional guidance sources.) 

NRC Has Not Reassessed CRGR Role or Developed Overarching 

Guidance

Although the agency’s processes have evolved for evaluating program 

office proposals for backfit implications, the agency has not developed 

overarching, agencywide guidance that describes the current process or 

reassessed what, if any, role the CRGR should play in the current 

process. 

In 1996, the Commission was asked, via SECY 96-032,15 to approve a 

major revision to the CRGR Charter to reflect changes in policy and 

committee practices. One revised practice included for approval was the 

CRGR’s move towards more frequent use of informal reviews in lieu of the 

once-standard formal committee reviews. As proposed, the CRGR 

support staff would review proposals submitted by NRC program offices 

and make recommendations to the committee members on the need for 

further review. The Commission responded to SECY 96-032 in a Staff 

                                                           

13 Management Directive (MD) 6.3, The Rulemaking Process, dated July 31, 2001, revised June 2005; MD 6.4, 

Generic Issues Program, dated December 2001, revised July 2005; and MD 8.4, Management of Facility-specific 

Backfitting and Information Collection, dated October 28, 2004. 

14 The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued office instructions LIC-400, Procedures For Controlling the 

Development of New and Revised Generic Requirements For Power Reactor Licensees; and LIC-202, Managing 

Plant-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests. Similarly, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards developed Policy and Procedures Letters (P&PL)1-82, 10 CFR Part 70, Backfit Guidance, and 1-84, 10 

CFR Part 72, Backfit Guidance. 

15 SECY-96-032, Charter of the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) – (Proposed Revision 6),

dated February 9, 1996. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

11

Requirements Memorandum; however, the response focused on other 

matters and did not directly address the request to incorporate the more 

frequent use of informal reviews into the revised Charter. Even though the 

Commission did not issue any other communication regarding this 

practice, the committee instituted a process where the majority of 

submitted program office proposals now receive only an informal review. 

The informal review process varies depending on the presiding committee 

Chairman, but proposals are primarily reviewed by the CRGR Chairman 

and the CRGR support person. According to the new CRGR Chairman, 

his informal process includes providing a copy of the proposals to the 

other CRGR members. If the CRGR Chairman does not recommend a 

formal review, no further review is performed. However, if any committee 

member disagrees with the CRGR Chairman’s determination, the need for 

a formal review is reconsidered. 

Although the agency’s processes for reviewing program office proposals 

for backfit implications have evolved, NRC has not formally reviewed and 

documented its current process or revisited the role of the CRGR to 

ensure that controls are in place to verify that generic backfits are 

appropriately justified. 

Evolution of Agency Backfit Reviews Raises Questions About 

CRGR’s Value 

The CRGR does not add its full intended value as originally envisioned for 

backfit review and stakeholders do not fully understand the NRC’s backfit 

review processes, including the CRGR’s role. Moreover, without 

reassessing and documenting the current backfit review process, the 

agency cannot be assured it is taking appropriate and consistent action 

with regard to backfit reviews and is taking the necessary steps to prevent 

unnecessary regulatory burden for licensees. 

According to the former EDO, if the agency does not adapt to meet the 

evolving agency backfit controls processes, the NRC may not be utilizing 

the staff to its full value. Because the agency’s backfit review processes 

have evolved, the CRGR no longer serves as the agency’s central control 

on backfit issues thereby diminishing the committee’s value as an advisor 

to the EDO and staff. For example, the CRGR’s frequent use of informal 

reviews, which are outside the scope of its Charter and typically do not 

result in a formal committee review, raises questions regarding the value 

of CRGR recommendations to the EDO on proposed backfit actions. 

Furthermore, both NRC staff and external stakeholders stated that they do 

not fully understand what the CRGR does, including the committee’s 

involvement in the agency’s backfit review process. For example, some 

agency managers thought that the CRGR still performed many of the 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

12

functions prescribed in its 1999 Charter, such as conducting formal, 

technical backfit reviews of draft generic proposals, and were unaware of 

the CRGR’s predominant use of informal reviews. In particular, the 

previous EDO assumed that recommendations received from the CRGR, 

whether as a result of a formal or informal review, were based on at least 

a minimal review of the submitted proposals by the full committee. His 

assumption that the full committee reviewed each proposal in some 

manner prior to his receiving a positive CRGR recommendation made his 

approval of program office proposals more “comfortable.” In fact, EDO 

decisions rendered on more than 80 percent of the potential generic 

backfits from mid-2004 through mid-2008 were not based on a formal 

committee review as expected (see Figure 2). 

 source: OIG-generated

Additionally, external stakeholders expressed confusion on how NRC 

backfit decisions are made or who actually makes them. Industry 

representatives commented on the lack of transparency in the agency’s 

backfit decisions, including the lack of visibility into what happens inside 

the NRC with respect to how the CRGR deliberates and/or reaches its 

conclusions. Specifically, they were skeptical that CRGR undertakes a 

rigorous or consistent review of submitted proposals since the committee 

does not publicly provide any detailed information as to how it arrived at its 

decisions. Absent a well-defined and well-communicated agencywide 

backfit review process, there is a real potential for stakeholders to lose 

confidence in the NRC’s ability to ensure that backfits are imposed 

according to the relevant rules and regulations. 

Figure 2 

CRGR Reviews 

June 1, 2004 - May 31, 2008 

Average Per Year

84%

16%

Informal Review

Formal Review
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

13

Recommendations:

OIG recommends that the Executive Director for Operations: 

1. Develop, document, implement, and communicate an agencywide 

process for reviewing backfit issues to ensure that generic backfits are 

appropriately justified based on NRC regulations and policy. 

2. Determine what, if any, role the CRGR should perform in NRC’s backfit 

review process, to include whether the CRGR function is still needed. 

IV. AGENCY COMMENTS 

At a January 7, 2009, exit conference, NRC senior managers, including 

CRGR members, agreed with the report’s finding and recommendations. 

The agency subsequently decided not to provide formal comments. This 

final report incorporates informal comments provided by the agency, as 

appropriate. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

14

[Page intentionally left blank] 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

15

Appendix A 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

This audit was initiated in response to NRC Commission interest. The 

objectives of this audit were to determine if the CRGR (1) adds value for 

EDO decisionmaking purposes and (2) if the CRGR’s function is still 

needed. To address the audit objectives, OIG reviewed the CRGR’s 

functions and how the CRGR fits into NRC’s overall backfit review 

processes. Additionally, OIG analyzed program documents, and reviewed 

relevant management controls, related documentation from internal and 

external sources, and Federal guidance. Some of the key documents 

reviewed include:

3⁄4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.109 and Part 76.76. 

3⁄4 The CRGR Charter, Revision 1 through Revision 7. 

3⁄4 NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines.

3⁄4 The General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

3⁄4 Periodic Assessments of the Activities of the CRGR dated 2004 

through 2007. 

3⁄4 CRGR Report, NRC Administrative Controls Relating to Backfit, May 

2003. 

3⁄4 Management Directives 

o MD 6.3, The Rulemaking Process

o MD 6.4, Generic Issues Program 

o MD 8.4, Management of Facility-specific Backfitting and 

Information Collection. 

3⁄4 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation’s Office Instructions LIC-202, 

LIC-400 and LIC-503, and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards’ Office Instructions P&PLs 1-20, 1-82, and 1-84.

Additionally, auditors attended an informal CRGR meeting and conducted 

interviews with agency and industry individuals, including: 

3⁄4 Former and present Executive Directors for Operations.

3⁄4 Former and current CRGR Chairmen and members.

3⁄4 NRC senior management and staff from:
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

16

o Headquarters, Rockville, Maryland

o Region II, Atlanta, Georgia.

3⁄4 OGC members at NRC Headquarters.

3⁄4 External stakeholders from:

o The Union of Concerned Scientists

o The Nuclear Energy Institute.

OIG conducted this audit between May 2008 and August 2008 in 

accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Major contributors to this report are Sherri Miotla, Team Leader; 

Catherine Colleli, Audit Manager; Timothy Wilson, Management Analyst; 

and Andrea Ferkile, Management Analyst. 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

17

Appendix B 

1980 1990 2000 1985 1995 2005 2009

1981

CRGR 

established 1984

CRGR support 

staff 6 FTE

1999

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

provides 

CRGR Chairman 

and 1 support staff 

2008

CRGR support staff

budget 0.5 FTE

1984

CRGR reviewed packages 

for quantitative and

technical data

1996

CRGR requested

use of informal reviews

2004-2008

CRGR primarily conducts 

informal reviews

1991

Charter reduces

information

submitted to EDO

2007

CRGR removed

from draft rulemaking

CRGR Evolutionary Timeline

1981-2008

1982

CRGR 

Charter

 Key

Blue – CRGR composition 

Green – CRGR reviews 

Red – CRGR removal
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

18

[Page intentionally left blank.] 
Audit of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements

19

Appendix C 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009

1981

CRGR 

Established

Evolution of Agency Generic Backfit Reviews

Timeline

1981-2008

1990

NUREG 1409

1988

10 CFR 50.109

2001

MD 6.4

2003

LIC-503

2004

MD 8.4

2004

LIC-202

2004

LIC-400

2004

P&PL 1-84

2004

P&PL 1-82

1986

Agency staff

may request

public comment

2001

Agency calls for 

public comment in 

rulemaking

2008

Majority packages

reviewed by

public and OGC 

before CRGR

2001

MD 6.3

1994

10 CFR 76.76

 Key

Blue – Agency guidance 

Green – CRGR establishment 

Orange – Public/OGC involvement